New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman speaks at a news conference on March 18. / AP

by Fredreka Schouten, USA TODAY

by Fredreka Schouten, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON - A growing number of states are working to force secretly funded non-profit interest groups to reveal their donors, as these tax-exempt organizations play a bigger role in politics.

The move comes as efforts to demand further disclosure of interest groups' activity in federal elections have failed to gain much traction in Congress and at the often-deadlocked Federal Election Commission.

Non-profit political groups pumped more than $300 million into November's presidential and congressional elections - or nearly one-quarter of the $1.3 billion in last-minute spending reported to the FEC by outside groups. The record spending came after the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision eased restrictions on corporate and union donations to independent groups.

Although the election is over, these organizations remain a big force in ongoing policy fights.

For instance, American Future Fund, an Iowa-based organization that spent $24 million in the 2012 election, is running ads to oppose Obama's choice of Chuck Hagel as Defense secretary ahead of Thursday's Senate confirmation hearing. Another non-profit, Americans for Prosperity, is readying a new advertising and door-knocking campaign advocating that Congress proceed with a planned $1 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade as a debt-reduction tool. The push will target dozens of House members ahead of a March 1 deadline for the cuts to take effect.

"The federal government has failed to act, and people in local and state governments are seeing the impact of Citizens United in campaigns and they are not happy," said Ann Ravel, chairwoman of the California Fair Political Practices Commission. "States are taking the issue seriously."

Last year, Ravel's commission went to court to uncover the source of an $11 million donation to two California ballot measures. The money was traced to a Virginia group, Americans for Job Security. Ravel's investigation continues. Officials with Americans for Job Security, which describes itself as a "pro-business" advocacy group, did not return phone calls and an e-mail requesting comment.

At least seven states have beefed up public reporting requirements or taken action to enforce existing campaign disclosure laws since the high court's 2010 ruling.

"To say that Congress is polarized and divided is a massive understatement," said Jennie Bowser, who tracks election issues for the non-partisan National Conference of State Legislatures. "States are where the experimentation is happening."

The most sweeping push is underway in New York where the state's Democratic Attorney General Eric Schneiderman plans to issue rules that will require tax-exempt groups that spend $10,000 or more on state and local elections to reveal the identities of donors who give at least $100.

Schneiderman, who has the authority to regulate charities that operate in New York, is holding public hearings on his proposal and plans to have new rules in place in March - ahead of November's election when voters pick a New York City mayor. This year, New Yorkers also will decide a ballot measure that could allow casino gambling statewide.

"These folks are actively trying to engage in swinging elections, and they are doing it with a mask on," he said. "That's what we are trying to stop."

Schneiderman said he expects to be challenged in court.

Jim Bopp, an Indiana lawyer who was the brainchild behind the Citizens United case and dozens of others that seek to dismantle campaign-finance restrictions, said state regulators could violate individuals' privacy and free-speech rights.

"A donor that gives money for a charitable purposes, for instance, a pregnancy crisis center, then could all of a sudden be disclosed, and disclosed falsely, as having contributed to political activity" if the same group runs an election-related ad, Bopp said. (Schneiderman's proposal would exempt contributors who demonstrate that revealing their names would make them targets of harassment. Another provision would keep private the identities of donors who limit their contributions to non-political activity.)

Tim Phillips, president of the conservative Americans for Prosperity, said the push by state regulators will have a chilling effect on fundraising and does little to address union spending, which largely benefits Democrats.

His group spent $180 million during the 2011-12 election cycle and has chapters in more than two dozen states. It does not disclose its donors.

"What we see from the liberal side is the desire to use government to hit back at those who disagree with them," Phillips said. "They are systematically looking for ways to make it difficult for groups that disagree with their ideas to operate successfully."

Not all the regulation is coming from Democrats.

Idaho's Republican Secretary of State Ben Ysursa last year sued a non-profit interest group that financed more than $600,000 in campaign ads and other political activity.

Under a court order, the group revealed its donors less than a week before Election Day. The list showed New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave $200,000, making him among its largest contributors.

"If we didn't take a stand on disclosure this time, we might as well take the initiative passed by the people in 1974 and put it away," Ysursa said. "Money is always going to find a way into the process, but the one tool we have in Idaho is disclosure."

In neighboring Montana, state lawyers have clashed in court with American Traditional Partnership, a tax-exempt group active in state politics, over whether it has to reveal its financial backers.

Other recent state-led efforts to clamp down on anonymous political spending include:

Rhode Island's enactment of legislation last year that requires tax-exempt groups that engage in political activity in the weeks leading up to an election to publicly disclose donors who give $1,000 or more. The law applies to groups that pump more than 10% of their annual revenue into politics.

State records show that Bloomberg also was active in Rhode Island elections. The billionaire-businessman-turned politician was the top donor to an education advocacy group active in Rhode Island Senate and General Assembly races last year. Bloomberg donated $160,500 to the non-profit, called 50Can Action Fund.

In 2010, several months after the Supreme Court ruling, Alaska enacted legislation that requires disclosure of political activity between corporations and unions. It also requires the names of top donors to appear on individual political ads.

Last year, Delaware Gov. Jack Markell, a Democrat, signed a law that requires donor disclosure for any group that runs an ad mentioning a candidate 30 days before a primary or 60 days before the general election.

In Maine, the state ethics commission is investigating whether a tax-exempt group that donated $1.9 million to a ballot-measure seeking to overturn a same-sex marriage law, must register with the state and disclose its donors. The group and state regulators are battling in court.